"Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer.

"There are about 400,000 Muslims in a population of some 7.5 million people. Close to 90 percent of Muslims in Switzerland are from Kosovo and Turkey, and most do not adhere to the codes of dress and conduct associated with conservative Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, said Manon Schick, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International in Switzerland." (New York Times, Swiss Ban Building of Minarets on Mosques)

So what is the point of a minaret, if it is short (cant be viewed from a long distance), and does not make noise at certain times (call to prayer), and is designed to fit into the local architecture (european, christian church steeple design).

Simply what is the point of such a thing, if it is not designed to stick out, there is no need for it to exist. If the people of that country dont want such a thing, and it obviously has no purpose but news sensationalism, and playground willy waving.

So you can "imagine" yourself in the scenario in question, you can then give answers via your thought of "being" in that scenario.

That would be useless. No one who is brainwashed believes they are brainwashed.

andyb wrote:

Quote:

Andy, please, I am sure you are aware of this, but: a good democracy doesn't mean The People can vote in anything they want. There are limits on what is considered acceptable and what is considered absolutely fundamental, whether through a constitution, a charter of rights, a declaration, etc.

They can, if it is on the table, the evilness of Hitler was voted into power.

I said good democracies. Hitler was voted in democratically, but his policies would have been stopped if a strong, fair constitution or charter of rights was in place and enforced.

(I'm not actually sure if one was in place, but if there was, it evidently was not enforced.)

andyb wrote:

Quote:

This was considered and set up a long time ago by wise, dead white men.

You would indeed be wise to repleace the word "white" with another word depicting a darker shade that was nearer "brown".

James Madison looked pretty white to me, in the widely used and understood meaning of "white" to describe people of Caucasian origin. Feel free to disagree.

andyb wrote:

I will vote away anyones right to remove my right to free speech.

That's catchy. Would you vote away Their right to remove your right to vote away Their right to free speech? How about religious freedom?

andyb wrote:

e.g. Some religious groups sanctify the killing of homosexuals, that is obviously a hate filled religion, but just because that religion says such a thing, does that give someone the right to actually and directly threaten and then kill said people.

No.

andyb wrote:

1, Some ancient written text, compiled by dozens of people over a very long time, Says they should be killed.

2, Somone actually says I will kill them.

3, Someone actually does kill them.

People seemingly have the right to read and preach No. 1, But No, 2 is still legal in much of the world, and No3, is actually legal in some countries.

Indeed, and great that you make this distinction. #3 is illegal under United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and unfortunately this seems to be the extent of the influence we in the West currently have on some countries. #2 is illegal in many countries under freedom from threats or fear. #1 is a grey area I don't have a set opinion on right now.

andyb wrote:

So what is the point of a minaret, if it is short (cant be viewed from a long distance), and does not make noise at certain times (call to prayer), and is designed to fit into the local architecture (european, christian church steeple design).

Simply what is the point of such a thing, if it is not designed to stick out, there is no need for it to exist. If the people of that country dont want such a thing, and it obviously has no purpose but news sensationalism, and playground willy waving.

What is the point of a quiet computer? If it is not designed to stick out, there is no need for it to exist.

minarets are just not part of (most of) the western architectural landscape. However, there are rules as to what you can build, where, and how. If you respect those rules, I don't care what you're building.
Same reason why here is Paris, some people are fighting to not let someone add jaccuzzi's and elevators in a 17th century unique house on the Seine (and tearing through the original hardwood floors and ceiling paintings).

Also, something to consider is that over the past centuries, whether we like it or not, our culture has been shaped by religion.
There was a debate here in France some time ago about whether we should leave the crosses (catholic symbol) on public buildings. The question is true for only historical buildings, like the Paris tribunal. The French constitution says religion has no part whatsoever in running the government, yet some powerful government symbols have a religious sign... On the other hand, should we destroy our heritage because of that ? At least there is a debate about it here.
Out of curiosity, what does the american constitution say about religion and the government ? I know there are references to God in the pledge of allegiance ; must be hard for those who believe in something not called "God" to feel part of the country.

Also, should we apply the same rules in our countries as the ones being applied on people in other countries ? Some countries force women to cover their heads when going out, not matter where they're from. This is against their freedom to not do so. So when those people go to another country, is it fair to tell them to not cover their heads ? This is against their freedom to do so.
(just as an add-on to the previous paragraph, it used to be a catholic thing for women to cover your head when going into a church... things have changed now. To go back on my own question about culture and religion, this example is one where culture influenced religion)

As someone who works in the world of architecture, the ban on "minarets" is a very steep and slippery slope. There is no justifiable distinction between these and things like cathedral spires, cell phone towers, church steeples, the Eiffel Tower and the Washington Monument, or even skyscrapers for that matter.

[moderator's hat] Please be aware of all the different people who might be reading your words. This thread has been veering around for a few pages now. Stay calm and stay civil -- please! [/moderator's hat]

There is no justifiable distinction between these and things like cathedral spires

Quote:

church steeples

Agreed.

Quote:

cell phone towers

Quote:

skyscrapers

I strongly disagree with that, people dont go to cell phone towers to pray (at least, I hope they dont), they serve a funtion, and have a purpose that is non-religious, in exactly the same way that electricity pylons do.

Skyscrapers are amongst the worst offenders of the skyline, if only for their enourmous size (some of the design and architecture, and detail is fantastic). But again, there is a non-religious purpose for those structures, they are offices, people go there to work. You could argue that enormous skyscrapers dont need to exist, churches dont need to exist, people can work at home, in a small office, people can pray at home, or in their small office.

Quote:

Washington Monument

Now that is a subject I know nothing about, but I am sure it could be comparable to Nelsons Column.

A man who with some luck faced the french, and defended our shores, a very important historical figure, as I am sure everyone would agree about George Washington. It is not just a monument to the man, but to what that person did, what that person achieved, and what that means to us all.

That would be useless. No one who is brainwashed believes they are brainwashed.

I mostly agree with that, but you have still dodged the question, would it help if I said please.

Quote:

I said good democracies.

That is a little unfair, if it was taken out of context, so here is the context.

Quote:

Hitler was voted in democratically, but his policies would have been stopped if a strong, fair constitution or charter of rights was in place and enforced.

Without wanting to sound presumptious, it seems that you believe that that the right to vote, has lower precedence than the right to freedom of religion. I agree that in this specific example it could be considered that this is reducing that religions ability to express their religious freedom. They have not had their religious freedom removed, just put into perspective, some might say violated. But on the other side of the coin you dont go to the place of worship because it has a spike on the roof, unless I am mistaken - more detail on that later.

Quote:

That's catchy. Would you vote away Their right to remove your right to vote away Their right to free speech? How about religious freedom?

Would you choose NOT to vote against someone who wants to take away your right to freedom of speech, because you would otherwise offend his right to religious freedom.

These need to be put into perspective, with the right to freedom of speech at the top, somewhere below would be the right to freedom against religious persecution, and somewhere below that would be the right for religious freedom.

Just like the wonderful words of Asimov (the three laws of robotics), they need to be put into an order of priority, and that order should not allowed to be undermined. No. 2 cannot be overruled by No. 3, and neither can it over rule No. 1

And to quote you again, but replacing words with numbers.

Quote:

That's catchy. Would you vote away Their right to remove your right to vote away Their right to No. 1 How about No. 3

No, and Yes in that order, I would not choose to vote away someones right to the freedom of free speech, but yes I would vote away their right to religious freedom if that religious freedom was trying to change its number position from 3 to 1. I dont see any position in which the freedom of speech should be over ruled by the freedom of religion, not a single one, it absolutely must stay in that order.

Quote:

What is the point of a quiet computer? If it is not designed to stick out, there is no need for it to exist.

Thats a meaningless abstract point to my original point which I will quote.

Quote:

andyb wrote:So what is the point of a minaret, if it is short (cant be viewed from a long distance), and does not make noise at certain times (call to prayer), and is designed to fit into the local architecture (european, christian church steeple design).

Simply what is the point of such a thing, if it is not designed to stick out, there is no need for it to exist. If the people of that country dont want such a thing, and it obviously has no purpose but news sensationalism, and playground willy waving.

Adding to my original point a little.

What is the point of such things as steeples and minarets if not as a shameless act of playground willy waving.

They are tall, distinct, and make noise for one reason only, to say I am here, and I am bigger than the other one, so I must be better, the other god is inferior as his steeple is smaller than mine.

I really dont think that it gets any simpler than this, and anyone who denies that, may as well deny gravity for all of the good that will do to them.

---

2 new Hitchens videos, that actually expose the Pope himself for covering up some of the sick and evil things that happen within the Roman Catholic church.

I also had to add this, it is utterly hilarious, such sweet answers as well, but it is pure comedy, although Todd Friel is obviously brainwashed, and quite stupid, he really is game for this and is part of the fun.

On Area 1, scenario 1, you score a 17 (A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4), there is a minimum score of 5, and a maximum score of 20. The midway point is 12.5, so therefore 12 is a weak agree, and 13 is a weak disagree overall.

While all the areas/scenarios seem to mix up well enough, this particular area/scenario doesn't.The point system doesn't work for this one, I can't imagine someone answering Q1-Q4 with an "A" and then answering Q5 with an "A" as well: someone agreeing very strongly to these statements will obviously never treat their children this way.Both you and Cov answered Q1-Q4 with "A", but Q5 was a "D".Q5 (and maybe Q10) seems to be needing a reverse point, otherwise the minimum score will never be 5 but 8.

The midway point for area 1/scenario 1 by your count will be 14. I'm scoring 3 over the midway point, both Cov and you score the absolute lowest score here (8, again by your count and applied logic), 6 below midway.

andyb wrote:

Your score is 4.5 higher than the midway point, and 3 short of the highest level of disagreement. On area 1, scenario 2, your scvore changes to an 18.5 which puts you pretty close to the strongest of disagreements.

So you go from a 17 to an 18.5, your answers dont change a whole lot between the 2 different scenarios, so therefore it seems that you dont think there is a really big difference between those 2 different scenarios, others would disagree.

This is a wrong conclusion (at least I think it is) because I think there is quite a bit of difference. But once you go assigning numbers to answers and just add them up, something is lost in the process.If someone (like me) is already close to one extreme, there isn't a whole lot of room for further movement.If you insist on the point system, maybe A=1, B=45, C=55 and D=100 makes more sense, as B and C are only slight agree/disagree.It will still be arbitrary though.

andyb wrote:

Also note that the answers for Q5/Q10 (would (do) you treat your children in such a manner) from everyone are, D, D, C, B/C, D, D, D, D.

This is interesting because it seems to be the question that we have all given the closest answers on. With the exception of Spook who has still not decided on a B or a C for Q10 we ALL disagree. But we do ALL disagree on Q5. (i.e. we all answered the same to varying degrees).

This may not make sense to you at all. Although I have felt an atheist for a very long time now, I have been baptised and went to Catholic schools from age 6 to 18. The "normal" Catholic schools, opening the week with a prayer, and "religion" (don't know how else to translate it) was a course at school, not only about Christianity but all kinds of religion.

This is part of general knowledge, and to me it's very similar to history or cultural knowledge. I don't think I'd want to deny my children knowledge of religion, as much as some dislike religion, it's part of our culture (and it's insane how much influence Christianity has had on Western culture). I don't think I would like my children to only think of Christmas as a presents and food event.

At a young age, like many others I presume, I started to dislike going to church, the only obligation was mass at Christmas, and after a while that stopped too (at age 13 or so). So, the environment I grew up in and the exposure to religion I've had didn't stop me to make my own choices.Don't blame me for doubting if no religion at all or some religion would be good for my children - I don't have anything with religion anymore but I do think it's better for general knowledge.

andyb wrote:

My answers changed from an A to a D, the reason why I changed my answer that much is very simple and straight forward.

She was brainwashed by brainwashed parents, to the extent that she simply MUST wear that thing, wheras in the second scenario, she has not been brainwashed, and has had a moderate religious ubringing, she probably wears a headscarf, she doesnt need to identify herself in any stronger way at all, after all if the headscarf is there to show alliegance and identify your religious beliefs then it stands to reason that the stronger your beliefs the more you have to show it. A christian might wear a cross (typically hidden, small, and made of gold), a hardcore christian might wear a large visible wooden cross.

If that is your view on it, we have all been brainwashed. Many customs we don't even think about have been implanted into our brain without us even realising it.We frown upon (some) muslim women wearing a burqa but we don't think twice about wearing clothes ourselves. Wearing clothes in Western society is part of brainwashing too. In the summer you can go to lovely beaches but we still wear a little something. But it's not needed.You simply don't go the full Monty because it's not considered proper.

Do you think hardcore Christians wear a cross because they are forced to?It's by choice.Or because these Christians have been brainwashed?

andyb wrote:

The whole concept of giving a neutral answer option is misguided in that if someone cant decide, cant be bothered to decide, or doesnt want their answer to be known (for fear of taking sides) then they simply have NOT answered that question.

Please can you decide on your B/C (or A / D).

I explained my point of view above, if this makes my list useless then I'm sorry. Hold on, I'll flip a coin.It's C.

Cov wrote:

spookmineer wrote:

andyb wrote:

I have always argued the point that you dont need religion to have morals, and you dont need religion for all of the silly demands it forces upon you, not eating pigs/cows for example.

I agree. Religion by itself does not make a better person (nor does it make a worse person)

I don't agree to Spookmineer (once again).

Firstly, you misinterpret Andy, then secondly, Religion absolutely does influence a person and hence changes his character in some way.In that respect, your statement is illogical in itself (once again).

How can I disagree to andyb if I said I agree?Sure, religion influences a person. The absence of religion influences a person too.My point merely was, you can not generalise by "religion", "sex", "skin colour" or whatever, what norms and morals a person has - even though they all influence a person.This also means, that however hard to find, there is bound to be some religious person with norms and values that you (or I) can relate to.That is what I meant when I said "religion by itself doesn't make a better or a worse person".

There have been a fair few cases over here, where "strongly reformed" (I don't know if the translation is correct) people abandoned this belief, and this has some consequences.The neighbour next to my parents had been married for 15 years or so, 3 kids. Simple example of how far this religion goes: they aren't allowed to have (or even watch/listen) TV or radio, they aren't allowed to work on a Sunday and they have to go to church twice every Sunday but aren't allowed to drive a car on that day.Abandoning this religion meant he had to divorce, he was no longer a son to his parents and he wasn't allowed to visit his children anymore.

The price is heavy, and I think this is what keeps them from abandoning it.Judging from the amount of times this happens, it's hard to imagine that "brainwashing" wasn't effective in all these cases.They simply made a (hard) choice.

judge56988 wrote:

I have worked for short periods in Saudi and several other gulf states - I haven't seen any of these countries allowing Westerners living there any kind of concessions. Even in Dubai, which is desperate for the tourist dollar/euro/pound alcohol can only be consumed in hotels and women must cover up when they go out. Surely if they insist on Western women following their dress code, Britain should have the same right?

I strongly disagree with that, people dont go to cell phone towers to pray (at least, I hope they dont), they serve a funtion, and have a purpose that is non-religious, in exactly the same way that electricity pylons do.

A man who with some luck faced the french, and defended our shores, a very important historical figure, as I am sure everyone would agree about George Washington. It is not just a monument to the man, but to what that person did, what that person achieved, and what that means to us all.

Structures with a religious function are meaningless, while a structure with historical value is not.
Hm.

It seems inconsistent: by your standards (it doesn't have a technological function) the Nelson column is totally useless. Yet you seem to be proud of it, and it's very meaningful to you.
The only thing you can do with it is look at it. How on earth is that usefull?
And how does that differ from religious structures?

While all the areas/scenarios seem to mix up well enough, this particular area/scenario doesn't.The point system doesn't work for this one, I can't imagine someone answering Q1-Q4 with an "A" and then answering Q5 with an "A" as well: someone agreeing very strongly to these statements will obviously never treat their children this way.Both you and Cov answered Q1-Q4 with "A", but Q5 was a "D".Q5 (and maybe Q10) seems to be needing a reverse point, otherwise the minimum score will never be 5 but 8.

The midway point for area 1/scenario 1 by your count will be 14. I'm scoring 3 over the midway point, both Cov and you score the absolute lowest score here (8, again by your count and applied logic), 4 below midway.

Totally valid point and I agree with you, that question was worded the wrong way round for the point system, it is unfortunately a little later now to fix, unless everyone wants to edit their answers accordingly , and I will reverse the question in some way that would still be fair to its original point. It might be easier to reverse the point system for that answer as you have correctly asserted.

Quote:

This is a wrong conclusion (at least I think it is) because I think there is quite a bit of difference. But once you go assigning numbers to answers and just add them up, something is lost in the process.If someone (like me) is already close to one extreme, there isn't a whole lot of room for further movement.

Again, a valid point, I was just merely trying to identify and question our answers without simply having more questions being asked, it is obviously not perfect, maybe the answer would be to open it up to a 100 point system, give it a number from 1-100 as your answer - just a thought.

Quote:

If you insist on the point system, maybe A=1, B=45, C=55 and D=100 makes more sense, as B and C are only slight agree/disagree.It will still be arbitrary though.

I dont agree with that, simply because the particular wording seems to mean something slightly different to you from my intention, maybe I should have gone with 1-4 as my answers (although I chose against that, the questions got numbers, and the answers got letters).

Quote:

This may not make sense to you at all. Although I have felt an atheist for a very long time now, I have been baptised and went to Catholic schools from age 6 to 18. The "normal" Catholic schools, opening the week with a prayer, and "religion" (don't know how else to translate it) was a course at school, not only about Christianity but all kinds of religion.

This is part of general knowledge, and to me it's very similar to history or cultural knowledge. I don't think I'd want to deny my children knowledge of religion, as much as some dislike religion, it's part of our culture (and it's insane how much influence Christianity has had on Western culture). I don't think I would like my children to only think of Christmas as a presents and food event.

At a young age, like many others I presume, I started to dislike going to church, the only obligation was mass at Christmas, and after a while that stopped too (at age 13 or so). So, the environment I grew up in and the exposure to religion I've had didn't stop me to make my own choices.Don't blame me for doubting if no religion at all or some religion would be good for my children - I don't have anything with religion anymore but I do think it's better for general knowledge.

I dont suggest that people shouldnt be taught ABOUT religion in school, in fact they should be taught ABOUT it, but they should not be taught it as a religion. There is a huge distinction between those 2 things, but at the same time they should be taught ancient philosophy, and modern philosophy because after all religion was humans first attempt at philosophy.

Quote:

I don't think I would like my children to only think of Christmas as a presents and food event.

Or the winter solstice...... whos celebration was stolen by christianity, and claimed as its own, how many people celebrate that any more, if someone wants to just hand presents around, and eat and drink a lot, that is no less disrespectful to christianity than it is to those who worship the winter solstice.

Quote:

If that is your view on it, we have all been brainwashed.

To a greater or lesser extent, yes. Not all brainwashing is deliberate, you only have to look at why teenage girls are starving themselves to look like the models on tv and in print.

Quote:

Many customs we don't even think about have been implanted into our brain without us even realising it.

Yes, take my point above about the winter solstice for example, we have had it beaten into us, it is christmas for example, and the date they stole from pagans are an example, and the name they gave it, JC was most likely born 4BC (ironic isnt it that he was born 4 years before he existed) and likely in june or july.

Quote:

but we don't think twice about wearing clothes ourselves.

I do, its pretty cold at the moment.

Quote:

Wearing clothes in Western society is part of brainwashing too.

See skinny teenagers above.

Quote:

You simply don't go the full Monty because it's not considered proper.

I can if I want, there are places where that is perfectly legal, but take spain for example, naked female breasts are a common sight on their beaches. Also remember that it is customary and considered polite to remove your hat when you enter a building in the UK - this may very well have come about because of a religious belief, but you wont get raped and then stoned to death for NOT.

Quote:

Do you think hardcore Christians wear a cross because they are forced to?

No, they force themselves to because they have been brainwashed to not think otherwise.

Quote:

It's by choice.

Hardcore = no, moderate = probably guilt or affiliation.

Quote:

Or because these Christians have been brainwashed?

Yes, but to greater and lesser degrees, think of skinny teenagers, some have not had a heavy or direct attack, but if it is all around their environment some will rub off.

Quote:

I explained my point of view above, if this makes my list useless then I'm sorry. Hold on, I'll flip a coin.It's C.

Thanks, you have made a choice, but if you would prefer to add more granularity to your answer pich a number from 1-100 (1 = agree, 100 = disagree).

Quote:

How can I disagree to andyb if I said I agree?

I was not accurate in my answer, sorry. I meant in regards to "nor does it make a person worse".

Quote:

My point merely was, you can not generalise by "religion", "sex", "skin colour" or whatever, what norms and morals a person has - even though they all influence a person.

You certainly can, and people do all of the time, some for good, some for bad, and some just because it is obvious - stereotypes are totally human, and to dismiss them outright is foolish, you would be better off getting to know "your" stereotypes much better (myself included). Stereotypes to some dictate who they are, and it is as simple as that, very sad, but true.

Quote:

This also means, that however hard to find, there is bound to be some religious person with norms and values that you (or I) can relate to.

No doubt, but the difference is that their religion dictates their morals and views to them, where I have chosen mine (and often change specific nuances).

Quote:

That is what I meant when I said "religion by itself doesn't make a better or a worse person".

But I believe the last point explains this one. Religion has all that is needed to make a good person bad, but not having religion does not remove all that is good from someone, and so cant make them bad.

Quote:

There have been a fair few cases over here, where "strongly reformed" (I don't know if the translation is correct) people abandoned this belief, and this has some consequences.The neighbour next to my parents had been married for 15 years or so, 3 kids. Simple example of how far this religion goes: they aren't allowed to have (or even watch/listen) TV or radio, they aren't allowed to work on a Sunday and they have to go to church twice every Sunday but aren't allowed to drive a car on that day.Abandoning this religion meant he had to divorce, he was no longer a son to his parents and he wasn't allowed to visit his children anymore.

That would be as a direct result of the evil, self loathing, torment, and punishment that the brainwashing and the religion has caused. I suggest that person would have been a good person without religion, but the evil that religion has poisoned that persons mind with is the problem. Maybe the best solution would be to go back to that religion rather than seek professional mental help, but I suspect that people who know the harm religion does cause to human minds would not be a good bet.

Quote:

Structures with a religious function are meaningless, while a structure with historical value is not.

It seems inconsistent: by your standards (it doesn't have a technological function) the Nelson column is totally useless. Yet you seem to be proud of it, and it's very meaningful to you.The only thing you can do with it is look at it. How on earth is that usefull?And how does that differ from religious structures?

I would not agree with that, there are huge numbers of buildings and structures that I would consider of historical and architectual importance, many of them religious. Personally I am just glad I am not speaking French, not to mention all of the evil Bonaparte would have done to my country.

But that is not to say that continuing to build duplicates of Nelsons Column all over the place would be a sane thing to do, and I know that people would be heavily outspoken about it (look at north Korea and the statues of the nutcase in power and you will follow). The blind following of a historical figure, and worshipping that figure is a crazy idea, but when it is in the name of religion people seem to loose their senses and simply go along with it.

Quote:

And how does that differ from religious structures?

If it already exists, is rare, or of significant importance leave it be, but dont think that you can impose things onto people who dont want them is right without merit. People dont go to the minaret to pray, they go to the mosque - the building of new mosques has not been banned - if it was I would ask some serious questions.

Many of the minarets in Switzerland that have been refused planning permission were refused because they are not allowed to be very tall, and people cant make noises from them many times a day, so all that is left is an islamic symbol, in a non-islamic country - you see the problem I am sure, many people are rightfully fearful of islam and the mad hate filled flag burners that represent them, so they have said no in a legal vote, people who dont like that should get over themselves.

I have worked for short periods in Saudi and several other gulf states - I haven't seen any of these countries allowing Westerners living there any kind of concessions. Even in Dubai, which is desperate for the tourist dollar/euro/pound alcohol can only be consumed in hotels and women must cover up when they go out. Surely if they insist on Western women following their dress code, Britain should have the same right?

Yeah - probably 8 or 9 years since I was in Dubai - maybe they have liberalised a bit; the women do seem to be getting a bit of attention though. I don't know how common that sort of exposure would be outside designated tourist areas.

My last time in Saudi was just after the last Gulf War and I doubt very much if it has changed there. Even we (men) were not allowed to wear shorts or short sleeved shirts.

They are an assemblage of Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Michio Kaku and Robert Jastrow. With heavy use of AutoTune these great scientists "sing" their words like poetry. You need to watch it to get the full effect, but here are the lyrics to my favorite of the three, called "We Are All Connected":

Quote:

(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)

[deGrasse Tyson] We are all connected; To each other, biologically To the earth, chemically To the rest of the universe atomically

[Feynman] I think nature's imagination Is so much greater than man's She's never going to let us relax

[Sagan] We live in an in-between universe Where things change all right But according to patterns, rules, Or as we call them, laws of nature

[Nye] I'm this guy standing on a planet Really I'm just a speck I'm just a speck Compared with a star, the planet is just another speck To think about all of this To think about the vast emptiness of space There's billions and billions of stars Billions and billions of specks

[Sagan] The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it But the way those atoms are put together The cosmos is also within us We're made of star stuff We are a way for the cosmos to know itselfAcross the sea of space The stars are other suns We have traveled this way before And there is much to be learned

[deGrasse Tyson] We are all connected; To each other, biologically To the earth, chemically To the rest of the universe atomically

[Sagan] I find it elevating and exhilarating To discover that we live in a universe Which permits the evolution of molecular machines As intricate and subtle as we

(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)

[deGrasse Tyson] I know that the molecules in my body are traceable To phenomena in the cosmos That makes me want to grab people in the street And say, have you heard this??

[Sagan] The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it But the way those atoms are put together The cosmos is also within us We're made of star stuff We are a way for the cosmos to know itself(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)

[Feynman] There's this tremendous mess Of waves all over in space Which is the light bouncing around the room And going from one thing to the otherAnd it's all really there But you gotta stop and think about it About the complexity to really get the pleasure And it's all really there The inconceivable nature of nature

[Nye] To think about all of this To think about the vast emptiness of space There's billions and billions of stars Billions and billions of specks

[Sagan] The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it But the way those atoms are put together The cosmos is also within us We're made of star stuff We are a way for the cosmos to know itselfAcross the sea of space The stars are other suns We have traveled this way before And there is much to be learned

That would be useless. No one who is brainwashed believes they are brainwashed.

I mostly agree with that, but you have still dodged the question, would it help if I said please.

Sure.

Q4. CQ11. B -- we are all brainwashed one way or anotherQ15. CQ19. CQ20. C

andyb wrote:

Without wanting to sound presumptious, it seems that you believe that that the right to vote, has lower precedence than the right to freedom of religion.

That is incorrect.

However, you can not vote on everything. There are fundamental human rights, religious freedom included, and these cannot be taken away by voting. However, see below.

andyb wrote:

qviri wrote:

That's catchy. Would you vote away Their right to remove your right to vote away Their right to free speech? How about religious freedom?

Would you choose NOT to vote against someone who wants to take away your right to freedom of speech, because you would otherwise offend his right to religious freedom.

These need to be put into perspective, with the right to freedom of speech at the top, somewhere below would be the right to freedom against religious persecution, and somewhere below that would be the right for religious freedom.

Um, no.

Religious freedom is like any other freedom. It ends where another person's freedom begins.

You can swing your arms all you want, but when you connect with my nose, you've gone beyond exercising your freedom to wave arms.

You can believe whatever you wish and act on these beliefs. The moment you let your beliefs hurt or deprive others, or attempt to use them to justify taking away other people's freedoms, you've stepped outside of your freedom of belief.

andyb wrote:

Just like the wonderful words of Asimov (the three laws of robotics), they need to be put into an order of priority, and that order should not allowed to be undermined. No. 2 cannot be overruled by No. 3, and neither can it over rule No. 1

And to quote you again, but replacing words with numbers.

Quote:

That's catchy. Would you vote away Their right to remove your right to vote away Their right to No. 1 How about No. 3

No, and Yes in that order, I would not choose to vote away someones right to the freedom of free speech, but yes I would vote away their right to religious freedom if that religious freedom was trying to change its number position from 3 to 1. I dont see any position in which the freedom of speech should be over ruled by the freedom of religion, not a single one, it absolutely must stay in that order.

Again, trying to change religious freedom's position from #3 to #1 goes outside of religious freedom.

andyb wrote:

qviri wrote:

What is the point of a quiet computer? If it is not designed to stick out, there is no need for it to exist.

Thats a meaningless abstract point to my original point which I will quote.

Quote:

andyb wrote:So what is the point of a minaret, if it is short (cant be viewed from a long distance), and does not make noise at certain times (call to prayer), and is designed to fit into the local architecture (european, christian church steeple design).

Simply what is the point of such a thing, if it is not designed to stick out, there is no need for it to exist. If the people of that country dont want such a thing, and it obviously has no purpose but news sensationalism, and playground willy waving.

Adding to my original point a little.

What is the point of such things as steeples and minarets if not as a shameless act of playground willy waving.

They are tall, distinct, and make noise for one reason only, to say I am here, and I am bigger than the other one, so I must be better, the other god is inferior as his steeple is smaller than mine.

I really dont think that it gets any simpler than this, and anyone who denies that, may as well deny gravity for all of the good that will do to them.

As a matter of fact it is a very relevant point.

If someone asked you "Why do you have a quiet computer? What is the point? You're just showing off. That's stupid!", chances are your answer would be somewhere along the lines of "What do you care?"

What do you care what the purpose of a minaret is? If it is not inconveniencing you, then let it be. It doesn't hold the call to prayer, it's pretty narrow so I doubt casting excessive shadows is an issue, any safety or clearance issues would be cleared up when processing individual building permits, so all you are left with is personal dislike of the way it looks.

The only appropriate argument I've seen against the minarets is the architectural mismatch. The architectural/planning argument holds its water decently on a local (city, perhaps regional) level, but applying it to an entire country is strenuous at best. Everything else was either misinformation, fear of vague or distant concepts, or plain prejudice, whether against Muslims specifically or religious people in general. Classic FUD, in fact.

What is the purpose, other than willy waving, of Christian cathedrals?

What is the purpose, other than willy waving, of bank skyscrapers and other towering corporate headquarters? (Okay, there are some.)

What is the purpose, other than willy waving and saying "not only did we kick French arse, we had money left over to put up a giant phallus too", of the Nelson's Column?

What do you care?

andyb wrote:

spookmineer wrote:

You simply don't go the full Monty because it's not considered proper.

I can if I want, there are places where that is perfectly legal, but take spain for example, naked female breasts are a common sight on their beaches. Also remember that it is customary and considered polite to remove your hat when you enter a building in the UK - this may very well have come about because of a religious belief, but you wont get raped and then stoned to death for NOT. (emphasis added)

But that was exactly the point -- you've been brainwashed to think that being nude in general public is improper, even during the summer when it's hot, and so is not removing a hat. The consequences of non-compliance have no effect on the fact we are brainwashed in the first place.

andyb wrote:

Many of the minarets in Switzerland that have been refused planning permission were refused because they are not allowed to be very tall, and people cant make noises from them many times a day, so all that is left is an islamic symbol, in a non-islamic country - you see the problem I am sure, many people are rightfully fearful of islam and the mad hate filled flag burners that represent them, so they have said no in a legal vote, people who dont like that should get over themselves.

Being fearful of a vague concept or people or actions only strenuously connected to said concept is a very poor basis for a constitutional amendment.

You may as well use vandalism and hooligans as a reason to ban the establishment of new pubs and sports clubs anywhere in the United Kingdom.

LOL...andyb I would say the same thing, your spot on. Religion brings nothing but war, pain and prejudice. Such an obosolete concern in modern society that's slowly being fazed out and when it's finally gone the world will be better place.

However, you can not vote on everything. There are fundamental human rights, religious freedom included, and these cannot be taken away by voting. However, see below.

You can swing your arms all you want, but when you connect with my nose, you've gone beyond exercising your freedom to wave arms.

You can believe whatever you wish and act on these beliefs. The moment you let your beliefs hurt or deprive others, or attempt to use them to justify taking away other people's freedoms, you've stepped outside of your freedom of belief.

We may not be able to vote on everything, but although it would be nice to be given the choice it would be hideously expensive. You missed one, freedom FROM religion, there are countless millions around the world that do not have freedom FROM religion. You only have to look at supposedly secular first world countries, such as the USA, Ireland, Italy and others that are don not have freedom FROM religion.

It is all very well protecting religion, but religion does not breathe, eat or sleep, people do, and religion (via the brainwashed masses) like to change laws (often legally via a vote) to discriminate against others because of their religion.

Here we have an example of religion changing (keeping) the law in its own vies because of religion, that is not secular at all.

Both of these are examples of religion shaping everything around it, and for its own benefit, not for the benefit of the very people it supposedly protects.

So, to back to your point of me letting my beliefs hurt or deprive others, or attempt to use them to justify taking away other people's freedoms, you've stepped outside of your freedom of belief.

"freedom FROM religion" should come at the expence of "freedom OF religion", freedom FROM religion does not rape children, murder thousands, and force its will on all of us, freedom OF religion does.

Please dont get me wrong, I do believe that we should all be allowed freedom of religion, but not at the expense of other freedoms, such as the freedom to have an abortion. If people want to practice their stone age beliefs they should be able to do so, remember I cant prove that god does not exist any more than I can not prove that faries dont exist: To quote Douglas Adams.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

If farie worship took off, and became prevelant in society, and then a worshipper of faries persuaded your government to pass a law banning people using the last 10-foot of their gardens in any way at all (let it grow wild), because that area is sacred due to the faries that live there, I am sure you would think that some bunch of nutters are using there freedom OF religion, but have stepped over the line, they are interfering with your life, and even though you dont believe in faries you will be breaking the law if you cut down the brambles at the bottom of your own garden.

To be explicit, the following go beyond the freedom of religion:
- killing non-believers,
- raping little children,
- forcing others to convert,
- forcing others to have, or not have, abortions,
- forcing others to keep their gardens for fairies. (See: punching me in the nose.)

The above points are not covered by freedom of religion, and thus cannot overrule other personal rights, specifically the right to live, freedom from sexual abuse, freedom to choose one's own religion or lack thereof, a woman's right to control her body, and right to do what you want with your property (within limits), respectively.

That the things above do happen has nothing to do with freedom of religion. In several cases, we have laws quite explicitly outlawing the activity in the first place, and those are not, and can not, be overruled by "freedom of religion".

You are free from religion by design, since others' freedom of religion ends before religion can infringe on your freedoms.

Can you explain how brainwashed masses voting in favour of changing laws to follow teaching of a religion, restricting women's freedom to control their body, is different from brainwashed masses (we are all brainwashed) voting based on FUD to ban construction of minarets, restricting others' freedom to do with their property as they please?

To be explicit, the following go beyond the freedom of religion:- killing non-believers,- raping little children,- forcing others to convert,- forcing others to have, or not have, abortions,- forcing others to keep their gardens for fairies. (See: punching me in the nose.)

Worship is one thing, and all of the following points are quite right. But peoples religious views are skewed when they come to make the laws about abortions.

And unfortunately many people still practice convertions, feeding people false guilt, and even murdering non-believers.

So if you draw the line at forcing others to convert, then why do you think that it is acceptable for parents to convert their "athiest" childern to their own faith, and in doing so warp their minds on certain points such as abortions.

I will re-define my views of "freedom OF religion", vs "freedom FROM religion", I strongly believe that freedom FROM religion should over-rule freedom OF religion, which as you have already pointed out is the case with laws stating that murder is wrong, even though your religion says its OK.

Specifically in the realms of politics and the people who chose their religious beliefs over and above anything else, such as those politicians in the US, Ireland and Italy who use their freedom OF religion to pass/keep a law that they simply should not be allowed to make. If anything the US is the worst culprit of this, take creationism being taught as Science, its ludicrous, and people should have freedom FROM such things. If someone has such outragous and brain numbing views then they dont deserve to have that vote.

In just the same way that anyone of a legal proffesion (judge, police officer, lawyer etc) are not allowed to be a member of a jury, politicians who are blatantly biased in specific areas should not be allowed to vote on such matters. They simply cant be trusted to do the right and proper thing, rely on the evidence that is presented to them via doctors, look at the risks, and severe social, wellbeing and family problems, but many dont, they simply ignore that because they think they will go to hell if they allow abortions. It is a very touchy subject, and I can only think of a single way round that, which is in some regards very unethical and undemocratic, but so is what those idiots who put their freedom OF religion ahead of millions of other peoples freedom FROM religion. Religion should have no place in politics, but it is in every country I can think of. Getting away from the current state will be a very slow process, and it has to start somewhere, whether it is in the home, the school, or the politicians, removing this bias is essential.

I hope my point is now crystal clear, and even I am sceptical about the above example, it is a very grey area to even be discussing, but we are all grown up enough to think about that clearly.

Quote:

Can you explain how brainwashed masses voting in favour of changing laws to follow teaching of a religion, restricting women's freedom to control their body, is different from brainwashed masses (we are all brainwashed) voting based on FUD to ban construction of minarets, restricting others' freedom to do with their property as they please?

Yes I can, one is simply the effect of brainwashed people forcing their religious views on others, banning abortions by law to an entire country whether they are of that faith or not, (freedom OF religion), vs the banning of building any more minarets (freedom FROM religion, by those who are worried about the increase of Islam in their country), (Freedom OF Religion, by those of other faiths, who want to keep the other religion down), and those that simply dont want any more minarets in their country because of what the represent (an oppressive religion), and those that dont want to have a spike sticking out of the roof of a building that serves no purpose but to change tha landscape for the worse, and no doubt some people are just making a stand against Islam because they feel it is needed, and numerous other reasons as well.

We may not be able to vote on everything, but although it would be nice to be given the choice it would be hideously expensive.

Are you saying you would like to vote on taking away Jews' (the people's, not the religion's) right to vote, then?

Where did you get that crazy idea from.???

I am interpreting your original quoted statement as "We can't vote on everything, but it would be nice to be able to. However, it would be hideously expensive." "Everything" necessarily includes taking away people's rights. Is this incorrect? If so, can you rewrite it?

andyb wrote:

I hope my point is now crystal clear, and even I am sceptical about the above example, it is a very grey area to even be discussing, but we are all grown up enough to think about that clearly.

Several things are crystal clear, but your point is not among one of them. However, I appreciate the attempt.

andyb wrote:

Yes I can, one is simply the effect of brainwashed people forcing their religious views on others, banning abortions by law to an entire country whether they are of that faith or not, (freedom OF religion)

and the other is the effect of brainwashed people forcing their religious views, insecurities, and prejudices on others, banning building religious structures to adherents of an entire religion whether they are considerate, model citizens or not.

andyb wrote:

the banning of building any more minarets (freedom FROM religion, by those who are worried about the increase of Islam in their country), (Freedom OF Religion, by those of other faiths, who want to keep the other religion down), and those that simply dont want any more minarets in their country because of what the represent (an oppressive religion), and those that dont want to have a spike sticking out of the roof of a building that serves no purpose but to change tha landscape for the worse, and no doubt some people are just making a stand against Islam because they feel it is needed, and numerous other reasons as well.

A little adaptation...

"the banning of establishing any more pubs and sports clubs (freedom FROM hobbies, by those who are worried about the increase of hooliganism in their country), (Freedom OF hobbies, by those who prefer reading books, who want to keep sports fans down), and those that simply dont want any more sports clubs in their country because of what the represent (vandals and hooligans looking only to cause trouble), and those that dont want to have an ugly stadion in the middle of their city which stands empty most of the time and changes the landscape for the worse, and no doubt some people are just making a stand against sports clubs because they feel it is needed, and numerous other reasons as well."

I am interpreting your original quoted statement as "We can't vote on everything, but it would be nice to be able to. However, it would be hideously expensive." "Everything" necessarily includes taking away people's rights. Is this incorrect? If so, can you rewrite it?

My views on the subject have already been clearly stated, even if I didnt put in a whole page of clauses in that sentence, so no thanks I will skip re-writing it there.

Quote:

Several things are crystal clear, but your point is not among one of them. However, I appreciate the attempt.

Thanks

Quote:

and the other is the effect of brainwashed people forcing their religious views, insecurities, and prejudices on others, banning building religious structures to adherents of an entire religion whether they are considerate, model citizens or not.

To a certain extent that it what the next sentence I wrote stated, some are brainwashed (the religious ones), some have been brainwashed by muslim terroists who only committed evil acts because of their religion (some would call that prejudices, others would call it polarizing acts of violence), Insecurities thats not as difficult to pinpoint due to the "s" on the end of the word, there are many reasons why an insecure person may vote on such a thing, but that is not the root of the cause, it would just help someone be pushed on way or the other, but I suspect that the media and muslims have a great deal of reponsibility in this area, some people push back when they are pushed, the media has shown the pushing, now people are pushing back.

Quote:

"the banning of establishing any more pubs and sports clubs (freedom FROM hobbies, by those who are worried about the increase of hooliganism in their country), (Freedom OF hobbies, by those who prefer reading books, who want to keep sports fans down), and those that simply dont want any more sports clubs in their country because of what the represent (vandals and hooligans looking only to cause trouble)

Nice analogy.

My answer is that people will continue to go to the existing ones, and when they are jam packed they would simply stay at home, and watch their sports, have friends round and drink beer. I dont think that would be a serious issue to most people anyway, as thats what I often do and what many of my friends do.

Quote:

and those that dont want to have an ugly stadion in the middle of their city which stands empty most of the time and changes the landscape for the worse, and no doubt some people are just making a stand against sports clubs because they feel it is needed, and numerous other reasons as well."

I certainly agree with that, I have never seen a stadium that is pleasing to the eye, but I guess that you like me would have a great deal less of a problem with such places if they are used for many other events (music concerts).

You missed one crucial, and often pointed out similarity between sports and religion, some people treat sports like a religion, there is no specific god (everyone can pick their own, and then argue about it), and there is no book telling them what they must and must not do.

On the other hand the problem of violence in sports is almost entirely limited to Football, partially for the lame rule enforcement system. I have been to a few football matches, and never seen a single bit of violence (but I have seen plenty on the TV), I have been to many more Rugby matches, and not seen a single fight - and that is with 35,000 in one stadium, in mixed groups (no segregation), and everyone is drinking alcohol, the atmosphere is also nicer and less tense.

Maybe we (I) could compare Islam to Football, and the Church of England to Rugby.

As I have pointed out a few times people are (rightfully) concerned with the spread of Islam into their country when they see what it represents, and the evil flag burning hate filled violence mongerers. Everyone seems to be concerned about that problem, except the Imams, they dont seem to care, and they routinely dont get outraged at mass murder, but to get outraged by cartoons and what people call teddy bears.

People witness these 2 actions side by side, and come to the conclusion that Islam can and does what it wants with little to no repercussions, I put it to you that some people dont want be pushed any more, and are now pushing back, do you think that is likely. No to be confused with people being fearful for no-reason, they have plenty of reasons, and yes it is to a degree media fueled, but what isnt.

My answer is that people will continue to go to the existing ones, and when they are jam packed they would simply stay at home, and watch their sports, have friends round and drink beer.

So if it will change nothing, why do it in the first place?

andyb wrote:

As I have pointed out a few times people are (rightfully) concerned with the spread of Islam into their country when they see what it represents, and the evil flag burning hate filled violence mongerers. Everyone seems to be concerned about that problem, except the Imams, they dont seem to care, and they routinely dont get outraged at mass murder, but to get outraged by cartoons and what people call teddy bears.

I see the conversation has come full circle back to stereotypes and Islamophobia. I think I'm done here.

andyb wrote:

People witness these 2 actions side by side, and come to the conclusion that Islam can and does what it wants with little to no repercussions, I put it to you that some people dont want be pushed any more, and are now pushing back, do you think that is likely. No to be confused with people being fearful for no-reason, they have plenty of reasons, and yes it is to a degree media fueled, but what isnt.

I think it is likely that people are prejudiced, un- and misinformed, insecure, religiously intolerant, and get their "opinions" from mass hysteria, er, media.

I think it is likely that people are prejudiced, un- and misinformed, insecure, religiously intolerant, and get their "opinions" from mass hysteria, er, media.

And I don't think that makes for good law-making process.

That's rather a sweeping statement; completely wrong in my opinion and somewhat arrogant.

Actually what occurs is that most people form their opinions from what they see happening in their own street, their neighbourhood and their kids school. These ordinary people express their concerns/displeasure/fears to whoever will listen because they feel that nobody is concerned about them. The media pick up on this and report it - reflecting public opinion, not forming it.
When the voices are loud enough the politicians will then hopefully take note of what the public want because votes may be won or lost. If they take no notice the result will be more discontent, unrest and probably violence. The rise in popularity in the UK of the BNP (A fascist political party masquerading as nationalists) is greatest in those areas most affected by the lack of willingness of immigrants to integrate.

Apart from public demonstrating and rioting, this is about the only way the feelings of the majority can be heard. (As opposed to a small number of politically correct, bleeding heart liberals; who have plenty of media access to facilitate their campaign to mould public opinion to suit what they think is right.)

The media pick up on this and report it - reflecting public opinion, not forming it.

I'll have to disagree with that. If 1% of the population is screaming and yelling in front of the media, and 99% of the population is quiet, does it mean that all the population is screaming and yelling ? I think not. The 99% might just be perfectly happy. (ideal world example since you can argue some of them just don't care, some of them don't want to care, some of them don't want to say anything, some of them don't want the media interferring and so on...)

Just one example : WMDs in Irak. EVERYONE (but the USA) knew Irak did not and could not have any WMDs. Yet the polls showed that the american population was in favor of that war at the beginning if I remember correctly. Why ? Some medias are manipulated and/or corrupted by and handful of people : they are sharing what those people want the truth to be with the rest of the population.
Get satellite TV and watch the world news on Al Jazeera, then watch the world new on Fox News. You'll get both extreme sides of the story, that should make it "fair and balanced" (hahaha, just a joke to the Fox News fans out there), right ?
Or we can all try to find our own sources of information, be open about what we hear, debate about it openly like we're doing here, but in the end it's everybody's education and background that will manufacture the "truth."

The point of nothing changing includes the skyline not being obstructed by Minarets, no one once mentioned closing the existing places and tearing them down, so in this context (of not building any more pubs or Stadia - in direct relation by example to the building of more minarets), why the fuss about nothing.

So nothing will really change, that includes the skyline, and the constant mosque building.

Quote:

I see the conversation has come full circle back to stereotypes

Yes, you could say that, some call it "life experiences", some middle aged people in London are still sh1t scared that the IRA and their opposite number will start to murder random civilians in London. What changes that life experience, if someone has tried to kill you by random chance but missed by a few minutes you wont forget easily, and neither will millions of others..???

Stereotypes are vauge in their accuracy, but the gun always points in roughly the right direction (unless it is under the control of a religion). Tell me that Islamofascist nutcases did NOT murder thousands of people directly because of their religion in this decade, and then tell me why many people do not associate that religion with mass murder, tell me that is not a valid stereotype.

Tell me of all of the times that Imams have NOT come out and loudly voiced their anger at terrorist acts that people have committed because of their religion, and then tell me of the times that they HAVE come out in anger at people telling the truth about their religion, tell me this is not a valid stereotype.

Quote:

and Islamophobia. I think I'm done here.

That word was made up, why? can be argued forever, and I dont want to argue about it, but it is made up.

A phobia is:

A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous

i.e. Islamophobia cannot exist, whilst people are rational, and..... well it is dangerous, so please dont use that word, it is totally meaningless.

Quote:

I think it is likely that people are prejudiced, un- and misinformed, insecure, religiously intolerant, and get their "opinions" from mass hysteria, er, media.

Good, now all you need to agree is that people have a RATIONAL fear of Islam.

Quote:

And I don't think that makes for good law-making process.

You might be right, but I dont think that it makes for a good law making process when very religious people are included in the decision making.

If the 7 million people of Switzerland cannot make a rational descision between them, then why would you expect xx% of the populous to be able to - or was that the point, you know that 99% of the muslims in the country would vote against this, but how many other people would be bothered, peoply usually only raise their voice for things they REALLY dont like (unless they have been brainwashed into disliking lots of things in a totally irrational manner by their celestial dictator and his minions) which explains why you see violent protests by muslims all of the time. Most people simply assume the truth - that it is a small minority of people who cause all of these problems, but the absolute majority of muslims will vote about how others SEEM to treat them via the mass media.

So in summary, whether or not the swiss way of voting on matters is right or wrong, I consider it justified in this particular case.

Quote:

Apart from public demonstrating and rioting, this is about the only way the feelings of the majority can be heard. (As opposed to a small number of politically correct, bleeding heart liberals; who have plenty of media access to facilitate their campaign to mould public opinion to suit what they think is right.)

Generally the British have to be really pissed of to demonstrate (unless a Union and money is involved), typically its something pretty minor blown out of all proportion, or some psycopathic lunatics burning flags because of some cartoons - beyond the realms of patheticness, its such a shame the the tree huggers have influenced government so much that the police didnt even bother to arrest several hundred people threatening murder in public.

Quote:

Or we can all try to find our own sources of information, be open about what we hear, debate about it openly like we're doing here, but in the end it's everybody's education and background that will manufacture the "truth."

I totally agree with that, again, this is the main problem with religion, it forbids you to think for yourself, and if you do, it trys to punish you for that thought. Unless I am totally sold with an argument straight away because its evidence is overwhelming, I will always try to dig a little deeper, try to get another angle on it, which I have done several times with the above discussion.

Quote:

If that was true, Switzerland would never have voted for the ban, because vast majority of people haven't seen any reason to fear the evil Islamists on their street and in their neighbourhood.

I hope they have not, but no doubt they have seem what Islamification has done to other countries and dont want to be part of that, as I have said before, some people are simply feeling the push of Islam, and are starting to push back, all I can do is discuss such things on this forum. I havent though about this before so a thanks go to judge56988, we dont have a pretty sypmathetic, and in some ways very polite way of saying no in the UK like some of the swiss have done, oh no, we have to go to extremes to be heard (unlike banning the building of more symbolic stone spikes), and vote for a right wing (fascist) party to be heard through the forest of tree huggers, because not a single political party in the UK has the gonads to speak their minds. Not ideal really, our votes will be by definition a much harsher push than the swiss vote was, and of course to even vote for this party you will also be voting for other things as well, what to do when you are left with no other meaningful choice as you cant simply vote like the swiss.

Good, now all you need to agree is that people have a RATIONAL fear of Islam.

I'll do that as soon as you admit to having a rational fear of Catholicism because of IRA and Ted Kaczynski, having a rational fear of Sikhism because of Air India Flight 182 bombing, having a rational fear of Canadians because our government refuses to apologize for the mistreatment of British migrant children, and until last month having a rational fear of Australians for the same reason. Bonus points if you are afraid of the British because of lack of apology for the Dresden firestorm.

I'll do that as soon as you admit to having a rational fear of Catholicism because of IRA and Ted Kaczynski, having a rational fear of Sikhism because of Air India Flight 182 bombing, having a rational fear of Canadians because our government refuses to apologize for the mistreatment of British migrant children, and until last month having a rational fear of Australians for the same reason. Bonus points if you are afraid of the British because of lack of apology for the Dresden firestorm.

You took those words right out of my mouth !!! Excellent point.

Also, always remember that a bunch of crazy idiots in front of the media will always influence more people that a lot of quiet people, no matter how dumb and irrationnal their arguments and goals are.

Good, now all you need to agree is that people have a RATIONAL fear of Islam.

I'll do that as soon as you admit to having a rational fear of Catholicism because of IRA and Ted Kaczynski, having a rational fear of Sikhism because of Air India Flight 182 bombing, having a rational fear of Canadians because our government refuses to apologize for the mistreatment of British migrant children, and until last month having a rational fear of Australians for the same reason. Bonus points if you are afraid of the British because of lack of apology for the Dresden firestorm.

During the Middle Ages several European Catholic 'theocracies' set out openly and zealously to conquer as much of the world as they could and forcibly convert the natives of those countries to Christianity whilst at the same time robbing them of their treasure.
The Fundamentalist Islamic doctrine today is to convert the world to Islam and to enforce Sharia Law everywhere. They are quite open about it and are only lacking in the resources to implement the policy.

That does not in itself constitute enough threat to instill in me a rational fear of Islam but it does concern me. The threat is there and it is real - how it might all pan out, who knows. Why do you guys think these people want to be nice to us? It would be an odd thing in human history if competing cultures did not end up at war.
Who would have thought in 500BC that the Romans would eventually control most of the known world?
Who would have thought in 1066 that the British would one day rule the largest empire ever seen?
And who would have thought in 1918 that a little Austrian born German with a strange moustache would do what he did? He managed to incite the German people, who were no doubt mostly not 'Nazi fanatics' to support the slaughter of millions. An illustration of how easy it is for a small minority of extremists to gain the support of the vast majority of moderates.

It's all very well to preach about integration and living in harmony; but that's not what people do. Any study of history or watching the news from Africa tells you that.

What I want is to protect Western Liberal Democracy from any potential threat from some fascist theocratic butchers who are at the same stage of development as the West was 500 years ago.

I'll do that as soon as you admit to having a rational fear of Catholicism because of IRA

I have a rational fear of every single Religion and cult on this earth that is practiced.

Now its your turn.

Quote:

having a rational fear of Canadians because our government refuses to apologize for the mistreatment of British migrant children, and until last month having a rational fear of Australians for the same reason. Bonus points if you are afraid of the British because of lack of apology for the Dresden firestorm.

I have no fear of democratic sensible countries such as the ones that you have just mentioned, or even for the reasons you mentioned. As far as apologies go, an apology from a country can only come from its leader, and many have been made, some will never come at all, but what does this have to do with the question. If you want me in person so apologise to the people of Dresden, I simply refuse, it is as ridiculous an idea as you apologising to several countries because of Napolean. I was not alive, I had no part in it at all, and I have never met a single person who did play a role in the firebombing. Do I feel some remorse over what other British people did to their fellow mammals in Dresden, yes I do.

I am sure that the people of Dresden dont fear the British, they dont run and hide every time a British Airways plane flys over, but they shoud fear religions who want to dominate them in just the same way that everyone should fear the Iranian government getting nukes - it is a real fear, because you know what they will do with that new found power, they will use it - exactly what has happened with most countries that have been dominated by a single religion - they use their power, and just like nukes, it wont be pretty. You only have to look at the last 100 years of Irans history to see what religion does to its captors (people).

If the war between Germany and Britain was a religious war it would still be going on right now, but it was not, there gain, is a large difference between a country and a religion.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum